To foul or not to foul

[jv001]

Agreed. UNC's offensive rebounding >>> UNC's three point shooting. It worked (barely - that was not an easy rebound to secure) but I'm not sure it was the right approach.

I was worried that uncheat would go over our backs and bat the ball out to a 3 point shooter that had not hit one all game and lady luck would give the cheaters a win. But The Good Lord took care of that and we came away a winner. GoDuke!

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

In the post game show on the ACC Digital Network, Seth Davis asked Coach Capel why they had gone to the foul strategy in these situations. Right as he was about to give some insight into the change, the feed cuts off. Argh! http://www.theacc.com/page/postgame-live

[captmojo]

...for the last two minutes on the clock, 2nd half and overtime only. Make any common foul, committed outside of the 3-point line, lending 3 free-throws to the fouled team if that team is established as being eligible within the 'bonus' consideration. The fouled team may use any player of their own choosing, whether on the scorer's book as 'checked-in' or not, to complete the three shots.

I believe this rule might discourage this intentionally unintentional foul.
A side effect might be that the trailing team with possession, would stay outside the 3-point arc.

[dukefan1980]

To me it all depends on the opponent that you are facing. I was not a big fan of the foul last night. Carolina has only one good 3pt shooter and he was 2-11 last night. However, they have great offensive rebounders that could have easily gotten that rebound and tied the game. I think that the odds of them tying the game with a 3 pointer were far less than them getting the rebound and forcing double overtime. Luckily, it worked out in our favor although it made my heart stopped for a minute. I guess there's a reason that Coach K has 1,000+ victories as a college coach and I have all of 0 wins.

[Tripping William]

Having now just watched K's post-game press conference last night, he mentioned, independently and not in response to a question from the media (IIRC), that he was very pleased with how the team played the last five seconds of overtime. He mentioned as well that they had employed this strategy down at Florida St. Clearly a considered decision (all three times), but I would be fascinated to hear him elaborate on his thinking about the subject.

What K did not say (but what I think Dean Smith would have said, if the roles been reversed) is that his team play six, maybe even six-and-a-half, seconds of great defense before fouling Nate Britt intentionally.

[94duke]

Fouling just cost VCU the game against Richmond. End of the 1st OT and up 3, VCU fouls Richmond in the closing seconds. UR makes the first FT and intentionally misses the second. VCU can't grab the rebound, and they tip it out of bounds. Richmond inbounds under their own basket and scores a 2 to force 2OT. Richmond barely won in 2OT, but VCU should have won in OT.

Richmond did the same at the end of 2OT. On the rebound VCU forced a jump ball and retained possession. So fouling didn't work here either. Luckily for UR, VCU turned the ball over, so it didn't cost them the game.

[uh_no]

Fouling just cost VCU the game against Richmond. End of the 1st OT and up 3, VCU fouls Richmond in the closing seconds. UR makes the first FT and intentionally misses the second. VCU can't grab the rebound, and they tip it out of bounds. Richmond inbounds under their own basket and scores a 2 to force 2OT. Richmond barely won in 2OT, but VCU should have won in OT.

Richmond did the same at the end of 2OT. On the rebound VCU forced a jump ball and retained possession. So fouling didn't work here either. Luckily for UR, VCU turned the ball over, so it didn't cost them the game.

it doesn't work more than people think. Kenpom has the number at like 50/50 or something in all cases, though i'm guessing the numbers can be skewed depending on the situation (in bound location, time left, rebounding ability, free throw defense)

[Bluedog]

Fouling just cost VCU the game against Richmond. End of the 1st OT and up 3, VCU fouls Richmond in the closing seconds. UR makes the first FT and intentionally misses the second. VCU can't grab the rebound, and they tip it out of bounds. Richmond inbounds under their own basket and scores a 2 to force 2OT. Richmond barely won in 2OT, but VCU should have won in OT.

Richmond did the same at the end of 2OT. On the rebound VCU forced a jump ball and retained possession. So fouling didn't work here either. Luckily for UR, VCU turned the ball over, so it didn't cost them the game.

And NOT fouling nearly cost Richmond the game earlier. Both situations happened in the same game! At the end of regulation, with <5 seconds remaining, Richmond has an opportunity to foul up three but gave VCU a look at a 3 pointer -- and they nailed it and sent the game to OT. So, the opposite strategies BOTH led to a tie and another OT. Can't really say there was another datapoint that showed one strategy is better than the other. If anything, the first thing that "failed" was not fouling...

[94duke]

And NOT fouling nearly cost Richmond the game earlier. Both situations happened in the same game! At the end of regulation, with <5 seconds remaining, Richmond has an opportunity to foul up three but gave VCU a look at a 3 pointer -- and they nailed it and sent the game to OT. So, the opposite strategies BOTH led to a tie and another OT. Can't really say there was another datapoint that showed one strategy is better than the other. If anything, the first thing that "failed" was not fouling...

I don't know. A step back 3FG from 26 feet is a pretty tough shot. It's not like they gave him a great shot. UR still almost won in regulation after that at the buzzer. Their last shot bounced high off the rim three times. I can't believe that one didn't fall in.

[Bluedog]

I don't know. A step back 3FG from 26 feet is a pretty tough shot. It's not like they gave him a great shot. UR still almost won in regulation after that at the buzzer. Their last shot bounced high off the rim three times. I can't believe that one didn't fall in.

Very true, it was a definitely a tough shot to hit, but they hit it...and they wouldn't have had that opportunity at all if Richmond had fouled. (Obviously, no way of knowing what would have happened in that case.) Yeah, that shot at the buzzer was crazy -- thought it was going in twice!

[captmojo]

As long as there is an opportunity to score 3 points, within the standard play on the floor, any violation made that denies the opportunity for that chance, is the only fair way to adjust the rules to conformity.
This rule, and ploy, needs change.

I'm not calling anyone unfair for strategies that use the current rules.

[cato]

As long as there is an opportunity to score 3 points, within the standard play on the floor, any violation made that denies the opportunity for that chance, is the only fair way to adjust the rules to conformity.
This rule, and ploy, needs change.

What violation are you talking about that would deny the opportunity? Sticking someone on the line does not deny the opportunity. The team shooting free throws can score anywhere from 0-5 points.

[SCMatt33]

As long as there is an opportunity to score 3 points, within the standard play on the floor, any violation made that denies the opportunity for that chance, is the only fair way to adjust the rules to conformity.
This rule, and ploy, needs change.

I'm not calling anyone unfair for strategies that use the current rules.

Couldn't you apply that same logic to teams fouling when down. Within the "standard play on the floor," the offense can use 35 seconds of game time to take a shot. Fouling on purpose is a violation that denies me that opportunity. How would that be any different?

[Tripping William]

And NOT fouling nearly cost Richmond the game earlier. Both situations happened in the same game! At the end of regulation, with <5 seconds remaining, Richmond has an opportunity to foul up three but gave VCU a look at a 3 pointer -- and they nailed it and sent the game to OT. So, the opposite strategies BOTH led to a tie and another OT. Can't really say there was another datapoint that showed one strategy is better than the other. If anything, the first thing that "failed" was not fouling...

In light of events the past two years involving their basketball team & the subject-matter of this thread, I hereby suggest we re-name the thread to "The Richmond Spiders Honorary To- Foul-or-Not-To-Foul Debate Thread."

[captmojo]

What violation are you talking about that would deny the opportunity? Sticking someone on the line does not deny the opportunity. The team shooting free throws can score anywhere from 0-5 points.

That 4-5 points doesn't really happen on the same play, does it? At least, not simply from the single foul itself. Other factors would have to be in place, to fill an equation that results in 4 or 5 points. The standard and typical successful offensive play without a foul, yields the chance to score a maximum of 3 points.

What I'm suggesting is the better chance to establish the game winner, by their floor play, rather than at the free-throw line.

[uh_no]

by their floor play, rather than at the free-throw line.

Because it's part of the game. Why should a pitcher be able to intentionally walk a player? Why should a soccer player be able to pull down a guy on a break away, forcing a free kick?

What do you want them to do when there's a foul? not call it? give away free points?

[captmojo]

Couldn't you apply that same logic to teams fouling when down. Within the "standard play on the floor," the offense can use 35 seconds of game time to take a shot. Fouling on purpose is a violation that denies me that opportunity. How would that be any different?

Are you implying that, like in football, there should be a situation where a violation would create an automatic time run-off? (as in the late game offensive penalty)
Since there is no same-time imperative for an offense to take a shot each possession, my feeling would be, no. There is only the same ruling for each team, for a maximum amount of time to attempt, to at least the point of making contact with the rim, within the 35 second time frame.

'Intentional Fouls' are too vague in determination. We all understand the unintentional-intentional. But try as I might, I can't read minds, only a play on the ball.

[SCMatt33]

Are you implying that, like in football, there should be a situation where a violation would create an automatic time run-off? (as in the late game offensive penalty)
Since there is no same-time imperative for an offense to take a shot each possession, my feeling would be, no. There is only the same ruling for each team, for a maximum amount of time to attempt, to at least the point of making contact with the rim, within the 35 second time frame.

'Intentional Fouls' are too vague in determination. We all understand the unintentional-intentional. But try as I might, I can't read minds, only a play on the ball.

I'm not implying that at all. I was simply juxtaposing that against your original premise, which is that the game should be decided by play on the floor, not fouling strategy. How could you punish fouling for a team whose in the lead, while not punishing it for a team that's behind. I think in both cases, teams should be allowed to foul, as fouling is part of the game, and comes with a certain cost. In the case of fouling up 3, you are putting the game in the hands of your defensive rebounding vs putting it in the hands of a 3 point shot. You essentially increase your odds of winning in regulation, but also bring the insta-loss into play. I wouldn't want to try to legislate situational fouling out of the game at all, because as you mentioned, it's too much of a judgment call for the refs. Your original idea puts the refs in a very awkward position when a guy is trying the fight over the top of a ball screen to deny a 3 pointer (a fairly common occurrence) at the end of a game. It's a legitimate attempt to deny an open 3 point look, but if the guy was overzealous and committed a reaching foul, the other team could tie the game off of it. That seems very much out of place to me, and the idea of changing foul penalties depending on the game situation just doesn't seem right

[captmojo]

I'm not implying that at all. I was simply juxtaposing that against your original premise, which is that the game should be decided by play on the floor, not fouling strategy. How could you punish fouling for a team whose in the lead, while not punishing it for a team that's behind. I think in both cases, teams should be allowed to foul, as fouling is part of the game, and comes with a certain cost. In the case of fouling up 3, you are putting the game in the hands of your defensive rebounding vs putting it in the hands of a 3 point shot. You essentially increase your odds of winning in regulation, but also bring the insta-loss into play. I wouldn't want to try to legislate situational fouling out of the game at all, because as you mentioned, it's too much of a judgment call for the refs. Your original idea puts the refs in a very awkward position when a guy is trying the fight over the top of a ball screen to deny a 3 pointer (a fairly common occurrence) at the end of a game. It's a legitimate attempt to deny an open 3 point look, but if the guy was overzealous and committed a reaching foul, the other team could tie the game off of it. That seems very much out of place to me, and the idea of changing foul penalties depending on the game situation just doesn't seem right

I know what you mean about the game situation, changing the rules with respect to the foul in the last two minutes. I have always frowned when I've heard announcers say things like, "You can't make that call at this point in the game." My belief is that if it's a foul in the first minute, then it's a foul during the last one too. However, I'm not talking about different rules per team. They would both bear the same responsibility, assuming they had achieved the status of being in the bonus free-throw stage.

The foul should not be intended to be used as a positive form of strategy. Of course it still would be. Even with the chance of taking 3 shots, there would always be favorites from the opponent that you might prefer to put on the line.

[-jk]

This is where - in the rules change thread - I'd suggested giving a team in the bonus the option of shots or the ball out of bounds with a fresh clock. Good shooter gets fouled, take the shots. Bad shooter gets fouled, run your best set play. And coaches would really work on those set plays!

-jk